The Democratic Party prevailed in the Nov. 7 midterm elections. "We’ve just moved out of a straightjacket," a friend commented. Many celebrated. But after that, lets think carefully about the larger picture of the current state of the American Empire. Signs exists that its power is declining. Little in the post-election coverage has considered this issue.

"Defeat is not an option," Bush again insisted in his press conference the day after his resounding defeat, referring to the Iraq War. Yet it is precisely defeat in Iraq that stares him in the face, as even many American generals have admitted. This defeat is not just in Iraq, not just of the Republican Party, not just of Bush, and not just on Nov. 7. It plunges deeper into the Empire itself. On Nov. 8 Bush once again attempted to mount his Victory horse, though with a changed tone of less arrogance.

Bush and company seemed amazingly conciliatory toward the Democrats in the first few days after their stunning defeat. But let’s not trust them. They are surely conniving and remain poised to attack when ready. Elections can open up the space for change, but deeper changes result from not only celebrations but also from vigilance and continuing campaigns for liberty. Let’s not be lulled into complacency.s."

Considerable enthusiasm swept the nation among some as news came in
that Democrats won first the House and then the Senate. Then Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was fired. I do not mean to rain on sunny
election celebrations, but perhaps it's now time to take that good
energy into deeper considerations of the state of the world and the
work that remains to be done.

Much more than the loss of the neoconservative Bush regime was revealed
on Nov. 7, if one looks beneath the surface. Some Americans may now
relax, hoping that the Democratic Party can fix things. This is not the
time to hold back and give Democrats space to get the troops out of
Iraq and remedy the many other sins of the Empire.

Now is the time to deepen our understanding of the nation’s imperial
role in the world. Most Democrats seem content to shore up American
power by making a few minor reforms, rather than attempt to manage the
decline in power that is occurring.

Internal and external political, economic, and military signs exist
that the American Empire is declining. Among those signs are the
increasing willingness of Latin American leaders to stand up to the
U.S., which for decades has stolen its natural resources and treated
many countries as neo-colonies. Those countries also deserve their
liberty.

The 20th Century American Empire ran on fossil fuels. The world’s
supply of petroleum and natural gas is declining, as the demand for
them increases, especially from China and India. So the U.S. is in a
mad scramble to secure its oil and gas resources. As fossil fuels
decline, so will the American Empire, which is likely to continue to
war for oil.

A basic expansion/contraction cycle seems to exist in things that live.
Since their arrival here the colonists and their descendents have been
steadily expanding, with few set-backs. Perhaps the time for
contraction is upon us. We can either do so gracefully, or be forced
into it violently. It is time for U.S. citizens to support the
withdrawing of America’s tentacles from throughout the world, allowing
other ways to flourish. We need to share rather than horde the wealth.

America needs to make a transition from expansion to contraction, from
domination to partnership. This can be done in either a relatively
orderly and graceful way, with good leadership, or in ugly ways by
America’s leadership, including Democrats, trying to cling to the
benefits of the Empire.

AMERICA’S MORTAL WOUND

The event of 2001 that stands out the most for Americans was the
unprecedented Sept. 11 attack by a group of mainly Saudi Arabian
nationals that hit the Empire’s two most powerful symbols – its
financial center at the World Trade Center and its military center at
the Pentagon.

That foreign attack on the United States was not a mortal wound to the
Empire. The real fatal blow was how the Empire struck back. Unable or
unwilling to attack the perpetrators of the 9/11 crime, the wounded
Empire struck viciously against the whole country of Afghanistan. Full
of the blood of revenge, it then attacked Iraq on spurious grounds.
Mainly innocent people perished in those attacks, as the world watched,
aghast and in disbelief and disgust, as the U.S. and a few allies have
slaughtered between 400,000 and a million people. Such a stain on the
Empire will not be easily forgotten.

So America played its military trump card, which has not prevailed.
Rather than rectify failed strategies and tactics, it has clung to them
tenaciously. The U.S. has sunk deeper into defeat in both Afghanistan
and Iraq, thus further revealing its weaknesses. Many who oppose the
U.S. have just looked on, waiting patiently, while organizing
resistance. The U.S. is now more vulnerable to attack than it ever has
been.

In neither of its last two major wars – in Korea in the l950s and
Vietnam in the l960s and 70s – did the U.S. achieve decisive victories.
The U.S. lost the Vietnam War. Many contend it also lost Korea,
especially given the current situation in the Koreas. The American
Empire seems to have reached its height of power immediately after
World War II, though in recent years – with its accumulation of wealth
and the fall of the Soviet Empire – it has appeared to be more powerful
than it really has been, what some describe as a "paper tiger" with a
"false economy" likely to collapse at any moment.

"But what will a Democratic Congress do that is better?" Yale scholar
Immanuel Wallerstein asked in a Nov. 5 essay on "the rude shock of
defeat," published in the San Francisco Chronicle. "The primary problem
of the leadership of the Democratic Party is that it believes, at least
as much as the Republicans, that the United States is the center of the
world, the font of wisdom, the great defender of world freedom." In
fact, Democrats seem to want "to restore the United States to a
position of centrality in the world system."

In l986 Gore Vidal published "Requiem for the American Empire" in The
Nation magazine. He dated the start of the Empire as 1914, when "New
York replaced London as the world financial capital…By the end of World
War II, we were the most powerful and least damaged of the great
nations." However, by the mid-1980s, the U.S. had become a debtor
nation. Since then it has sunk even further into debt, especially to
China. "Like most modern empires," according to Vidal, "ours rested not
so much on military prowess as on economic power."

I deliberately do not use words like "fall," "requiem," or "collapse"
to describe what is happening in the U.S. today, for that would be
premature. America still has considerable power and the decline is
likely to take years. Much depends upon how America’s leaders and
people respond to the changing power alignment in the world. More wars
for oil, for example, will further erode our own limited natural
resources and any remaining goodwill with other nations. An alternative
would be to manage the decline skillfully and take a less dominant role
within the community of nations.

Though still the world’s only remaining superpower, there are many
signs that the U.S. is loosing its economic primacy. Right before the
midterm elections, Bush finally admitted that the Iraq War has indeed
been a war for oil. As the U.S. dollar continues to slide and be
volatile, there is more talk of using the Euro for the international
petro-currency.

Regardless of what the Democrats do, we should expect the Empire to
decline further. The post-election enthusiasm can be used as an opening
to explore the American soul more deeply, consider how to manage this
decline, and then take courageous actions.

Power is shifting East (as well as South), which is why the U.S. fought in Korea, Indochina, and now in the Middle East.

WHAT NOW?

Everything that lives dies – individuals, planets, and even
powerful empires. The American Empire is sliding into decline; the main
issue, in my opinion, is how to manage that decline. We can squander
our remaining resources and worsen our relationships with other peoples
and countries – as the U.S. government seems intent on doing, having
quickly spent the world’s post-9/11 goodwill. Or we can apply our
substantial skills and resources to collaborating with others in ways
that are characterized by humility and cooperation rather than
arrogance and domination.

We have many historical examples of how empires can fall and collapse.
The warlike Mayans basically disappeared. Rome ceased, though its
remnants remain in Italy. The Soviet Empire collapsed somewhat swiftly,
though Russia remains powerful. The British Empire is America’s most
immediate ancestor. They all merit our study to understand what is
happening today. Is the soft landing of an empire even possible?

The demise of the American Empire will have profound implications for
the nation, as well as for the world. "You’re a dreamer," a close
friend and elected official responded when I suggested that perhaps the
centralized American Empire might eventually dissolve into smaller,
separate countries. Vermont already has a growing independence
movement. In Northern California there has long been talk of seceding
from Southern California. Perhaps Northern California could join with
Oregon and Washington, if they would have us, and call ourselves
something like Cascadia.

Such thinking may be premature. But when the Soviet Empire eventually
fell, it did so quite quickly, as did the Berlin Wall in l989. When
events suddenly come to a head, much can shift. So it is prudent to do
contingency planning.

I celebrate that the Democrats handed Bush such a decisive defeat on
Nov. 7. But it is not enough. Presumed Speaker of the House Nancy
Pelosi has made it clear that she will not even hear the growing chorus
of voices calling for Bush’s impeachment. She is more likely to close
ranks and seek to extend the life of the Empire, given how indebted she
and her colleagues are to corporations that benefit from the Empire’s
far reach. The Democrats are unlikely to see their task as managing the
Empire’s decline, which will not be popular among many Americans, who
continue to benefit from the privileges of that Empire. Before one
jumps on the Democrat’s bandwagon, careful consideration of the party’s
intentions and actions would be in order.

An early test case for how serious the resurgent Democrats will be is
the U.S. armed forces request of $160 billion supplemental
appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the remainder
of the fiscal year 2007. The request came a couple of days after the
Nov. 7 election. Rep. Pelosi has already vowed not to undercut troops
in the field. The military budget of the U.S. is more than the combined
military budgets of all the world’s other countries. U.S. arms
manufacturers export most of the world’s weapons.

Though the Bush administration now appears to be in decline, he was
able to successfully rally the American people for six years by
appealing to their desire to retain imperial power with its substantial
privileges. The Democrats are likely to do the same, especially when
threatened. Though in decline, the U.S. Empire will continue to wield
substantial power for years.

A perceptive writer, Tom Engelhardt, posted "Voters Attack Bush’s
Empire" on Nov. 8. He writes, "For vast majorities abroad, the vision
of the U.S. as an Outlaw Empire is nothing new." Engelhardt writes
about the imperial presidency, but it is more than the presidency.
Unfortunately, this imperial posture seems to be adopted by the
Congress, as well as most Americans, who seem to feel that we are
somehow entitled to rule the world with the American Way of Life. So a
change at the top, or even in Congress, is not likely to be enough. We
need what my teacher Brazilian Paolo Freire describes as "cultural
action" to make deeper changes in America.

As the peace activist and advocate for Hawaiian sovereignty Jim
Albertini wrote in a flyer for a post-election vigil on the Hawai’i
Island, "Democrats, and the American people, must now show by concrete
actions, not mere words, that we stand for a different America. Let our
actions speak clearly of a just and peaceful partner, rather than a
global bully, in an international community of equals where dialogue,
not weapons, is the method of solving problem

More from this author:

Torture Memories (6485 Hits)By Shepherd Bliss
I try not to think about torture. Then I read the following: Vice-President Dick Cheney apparently defends it, a U.S. soldier...

Modest first steps for the Dems to consider
If the Democratic Party leadership candidly considered the Dems true history within the two-party system, they should recognize that a return to military isolationism and creative diplomatic internationalism would advance their own domestic partisan interests, while simultaneously cushioning the shock of the American empire's decline.

It is, after all, the Teddy Roosevelt/Ronald Reagan military interventionist wing of the GOP that has fomented the most egregious, repeated misuse of Pentagon power abroad on behalf of US corporate interests. LBJ's tragic fiasco in Vietnam is best viewed as an aberration from ordinary two-party dynamics.

In general, Democratic Presidents sent troops to fight and die abroad only when America was first attacked from outside, or when US participation was part of a genuine mulit-national coalition. Vietnam, and the atrocities of the current Iraq occupation, is what you get when the Dems abandon the traditional anti-military adventurism of their base, in order to prove they too can be as "tough" as their Republican counterparts.

Now that the votes have been counted and there suddenly is a two-year window of opportunity to actually do something meaningful about the excesses of empire and the military industrial complex, I suggest the following modest steps to Speaker Pelosi, Senator Levin, and the other bi-partisan beltway power brokers who really do want to disengage from the Middle East bloodbath.

First, repeal the Iraq War Authorization for Use of Force statute as it was enacted and signed into law by President Bush. Repeal of a federal statute is not subject to the Chief Executive's veto power. Moreover, simply on the merits it should be considered a disgrace that an act of our national Parliament remains in the law books which declares that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to peace and our national security in 2002, because he had weapons of mass destruction and was conspiring with the evildoers who attacked America on 9/11. Repeal the lies.

Second, replace the Iraq occupation AUMF statute with a new resolution fully supporting the troops' right of self defense while withdrawing completely from the Middle East, preferably back to the western hemisphere, or at least to redeployment regions where their presence is genuinely welcome and would not foster future terrorist attacks. Start immediately. Set a date certain deadline to complete the process. Fund that new mission in full.

Third, use the Congressional power of the purse to target and defund specific projects that are, by their very nature, inconsistent with repudiation of the continued occupation of Iraq. When possible, redirect the cancelled appropriation funds to a specific alternative non-military need.

Take the money from the Green Zone embassy construction project and spend it on the New Orleans levees.

Take the money from the dozen new military bases and spend it on AIDS or alternative energy.

Take the money from the third party contract boondoggles propping up our military presence and spend it on domestic port security.

Take the money from Gitmo and the CIA's secret black budget interrogation base network, and spend it on a comprehensive audit and a special prosecutor office to retrieve the billions of tax dollars stolen during the Iraq occupation to date.

Repeal, replace, and reinvest. And impeach both Bush and Cheney if they give you any more bullshit.